TOP NEWS

Search

Popular

Recent

Comments

The FBI, The CIA, Homeland Security, The Federal Reserve And Potential Employers Are All Monitoring You On Facebook And Twitter


Why is there such a sudden obsession with monitoring what average Americans are saying on Facebook and Twitter?  To be honest, the vast majority of what is being said on Facebook and Twitter is simply not worth reading even if you could understand it.  But for the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Reserve, Facebook and Twitter represent a treasure trove of intelligence information.  Tens of millions of us have compiled incredibly detailed dossiers on ourselves and have put them out there for the entire world to see.  Since the information is public, the various alphabet agencies of the federal government see no problem with scooping up all of that information and using it for their own purposes.  Many potential employers have also discovered that Facebook and Twitter can tell them an awful lot about potential employees.  Social media creates a permanent record that reflects who you are and what you believe, and many Americans are finding out that all of this information can come back and haunt them in a big way.  In the world in which we now live, privacy is becoming a thing of the past, and we all need to be mindful of the things that we are exposing to the public.
Sadly, most Americans have absolutely no idea who is monitoring them on Facebook, Twitter and other social media websites these days.  The following are just a few examples....
Potential Employers
If you apply for a job at a big company, there is a very high probability that the company will want to check out what you have been doing on Facebook and Twitter.
According to one recent survey, approximately 90 percent of all human resources professionals check out the social media accounts of potential employees.
If you are applying for a job at a small business, there is probably much less of a chance that your social media accounts will be checked, but the reality is that all of us need to understand how the world is changing.
Some employers, colleges and government agencies are even taking things a step further.  Now some of them are actually demanding to be allowed in to the Facebook accounts of applicants.  The following is from a recent Daily Mail article....
Rather than trying to get around the pesky password protections of Facebook and email accounts, certain government agencies and colleges are cutting straight to the source.
Some extremely inquisitive employers are asking candidates to hand over them their email and Facebook login information when they apply for a job.
Others strongly request that the candidate opens their pages in front of them and allow their would-be bosses to scroll through their private information during the interview.
How would you feel if someone forced you to hand over the passwords to your social media accounts?  At some U.S. colleges, this is actually happening.  As MSNBC recently described, some college sports teams are actually requiring coaches to continually monitor, and have access to, all social media accounts of team members....
A recent revision in the handbook at the University of North Carolina is typical:
"Each team must identify at least one coach or administrator who is responsible for having access to and regularly monitoring the content of team members’ social networking sites and postings,” it reads. "The athletics department also reserves the right to have other staff members monitor athletes’ posts."
This is beyond creepy, but this is the world in which we live.
The FBI
The FBI has also decided that it needs to continuously monitor Facebook, Twitter and other social media websites.  The following is from an article posted on zdnet.com....
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is looking to develop a Web app that can continuously monitor social networks, including Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace, as well as various news feeds. The organization’s goal is to improve its real-time intelligence when it comes to current and emerging security threats.
The CIA
The CIA is a long way ahead of the FBI in monitoring social media.  If you are an "activist" on the Internet, the CIA probably knows you very well.  The following is from a recent USA Today article....
In an anonymous industrial park in Virginia, in an unassuming brick building, the CIA is following tweets — up to 5 million a day.
At the agency's Open Source Center, a team known affectionately as the "vengeful librarians" also pores over Facebook, newspapers, TV news channels, local radio stations, Internet chat rooms — anything overseas that anyone can access and contribute to openly.
The Department Of Homeland Security
Department of Homeland Security Undersecretary Caryn Wagner made headlines all over the world a while back when she announcedthat the Department of Homeland Security would be “gleaning information from sites such as Twitter and Facebook for law enforcement purposes.”
So exactly what does that mean?
Well, apparently the Department of Homeland Security is actually setting up fake accounts and using them to monitor social media networks for information.  The following is from a recent Daily Mail article....
The Department of Homeland Security makes fake Twitter and Facebook profiles for the specific purpose of scanning the networks for 'sensitive' words - and tracking people who use them.
That same article detailed what some of those "sensitive words" are a few paragraphs later....
The DHS outlined plans to scans blogs, Twitter and Facebook for words such as 'illegal immigrant', 'outbreak', 'drill', 'strain', 'virus', 'recovery', 'deaths', 'collapse', 'human to animal' and 'trojan', according to an 'impact asssessment' document filed by the agency.
It is interesting that the Department of Homeland Security considers "collapse" to be such an important keyword.
Does that mean that every time "The Economic Collapse Blog" is mentioned on Facebook or Twitter the Department of Homeland Security is alerted?
That is a sobering thought.
The U.S. Air Force
It turns out that the U.S. Air Force also wants to do more to monitor social media.  The following is from a recent article by Madison Ruppert....
Dr. Mark Maybury, the United States Air Force Chief Scientist, is stepping outside of the typical areas in which an Air Force Chief Scientist operates and into the digital realm.
Maybury seeks to develop something he has dubbed “Social Radar” which would monitor information coming from just about every source imaginable: television, all Internet communications, radio, official reports, and more, in order to look into the hearts and minds of target populations and perhaps even predict future events.
The Federal Reserve
According to CNBC, the Federal Reserve "is planning on monitoring what you say about it on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook".
Aren't they supposed to be "above politics"?
So why is the Fed so concerned about what we are all saying about it?
Why is there a need to perform "sentiment analysis" on what is being said about the Federal Reserve on "Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, Forums and YouTube"?
Are they going to change their policies based on public opinion.
That seems highly unlikely.
Considering the fact that the Fed is setting up a system that would identify "key bloggers" and monitor "billions of conversations" on the Internet, it seems more likely that they are primarily interested in identifying critics of the Federal Reserve.
So once they have that information, what do they plan to do with it?
In the end, a lot of people are going to be scared away from Facebook and Twitter by all of this.
But the truth is that Facebook and Twitter can also be incredibly powerful tools for spreading the truth.
In the old days, it was nearly impossible for an average American to communicate to a mass audience.
Today, someone sitting alone in their own home can put something on the Internet that could potentially be seen by tens of millions of people.
The Internet has empowered average Americans unlike almost anything else that we have seen.
That is why the establishment feels so threatened by it.
We now have the power to directly talk with one another instead of going through establishment-controlled channels.
So let them see what we are talking about if they want to.
Perhaps some of them will wake up too.
If they want to find my Twitter account, they can find it right here.
When you have the truth on your side, you don't need to be ashamed.  I am going to keep waking people up no matter how many people want to watch me.
America has become a crazy control freak nation where the control freaks that run things are obsessed with monitoring almost everything that the rest of us are doing.
But hopefully if enough of us stand up and speak loudly enough, a cultural shift back toward liberty and freedom will happen.
America is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
So keep preaching the message of liberty and freedom.
Perhaps those stalking us on Facebook and Twitter will get the message if we keep repeating it often enough.
0
Read more

45 Signs That America Will Soon Be A Nation With A Very Tiny Elite And The Rest Of Us Will Be Poor

The American Dream
The middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in the United States today.  America is a nation with a very tiny elite that is rapidly becoming increasingly wealthy while everyone else is becoming poorer.  So why is this happening?  Well, it is actually very simple.  Our institutions are designed to concentrate wealth in the hands of a very limited number of people.  Throughout human history, almost all societies that have had a big centralized government have also had a very high concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite.  Throughout human history, almost all societies that have allowed big business or big corporations to dominate the economy have also had a very high concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite.  Well, the United States has allowed both big government and big corporations to grow wildly out of control.  Those were huge mistakes.  Our founding fathers attempted to establish a nation where the federal government would be greatly limited and where corporations would be greatly restricted.  Unfortunately, we have turned our backs on those principles and now we are paying the price.
When you have great concentrations of wealth and power, the economic rewards of a society tend to go to just a few.
In the United States today, big businesses and wealthy individuals fund the campaigns of our politicians, and in turn our politicians pass laws which rig the game in their favor.  It is a symbiotic relationship which is very bad for America.
Sadly, most conservatives tend to cheer on the big corporations, but this is not how our founding fathers envisioned our capitalist system working.  Our founding fathers envisioned large numbers of similar companies competing against one another for customers.  They did not envision a very small number of giant corporations buying up all of their competitors or smashing them into oblivion with their giant piles of money.
True conservatives should want to see more competition instead of less competition.  Competition helped make America great, and we need to get back to that.
Instead of an economic landscape dominated by monolithic predator corporations, we need an economic environment where millions of small businesses can thrive and compete directly with one another.
Our founding fathers never intended for us to have the kind of system that we have today.  As I have discussed in previous articles, our founding fathers greatly restricted the size and scope of corporations in early America.  The following is how author Stephen D. Foster Jr. described the attitude toward corporations in the early years of the United States....
The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.
After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense.

A giant central government that spends more than 20 percent of our GDP is a collectivist institution.
Enormous predator corporations that are constantly sucking up even more money and power are collectivist institutions.
Our founding fathers did not intend for our society to be dominated by collectivist institutions.
Very large institutions tend to reward the people that own and run them at the expense of everyone else.
And you know what?
A lot of these giant corporations have figured out that they don't even need American workers anymore.
Instead, many of them are shipping our jobs to the other side of the world where it it legal to pay slave labor wages.  That means bigger profits for them but less jobs for the rest of us.
In America today, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and big government and big corporations are the mechanisms by which this is happening.
Posted below are 45 signs that America will soon be a nation with a very tiny elite and the rest of us will be poor....
#1 Increasingly, gains in income are becoming very highly concentrated at the top of the food chain in America.  The following is how income gains in the United States were distributed during 2010....
-37 percent of all income gains went to the top 0.01 percent of all income earners
-56 percent of all income gains went to the rest of the top 1 percent
-7 percent of all income gains went to the bottom 99 percent
#2 Back in the 70s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income.  Today, they earn about 21 percent of all income.
#3 The wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans own more wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined.
#4 According to Forbes, the 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans combined.
#5 The poorest 50 percent of all Americans collectively own just 2.5% of all the wealth in the United States.
#6 Median household income in the United States is down 7.8 percent since December 2007 after adjusting for inflation.
#7 The top 0.01% of all Americans make an average of $27,342,212.  The bottom 90% make an average of $31,244.
#8 According to the Economic Policy Institute, between 1979 and 2007 income growth for the top 1 percent of all U.S. income earners was an astounding 390 percent.  For the bottom 90 percent, income growth was only 5 percent over that same time period.
#9 According to one study, between 1969 and 2009 the median wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 droppedby 27 percent after you account for inflation.
#10 In 2010, 2.6 million more Americans descended into poverty.  That was the largest increase that we have seen since the U.S. government began keeping statistics on this back in 1959.
#11 According to the New York Times, approximately 100 million Americans are either living in poverty or in "the fretful zone just above it".
#12 According to Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, about 53 percent of all income went to the middle class back in the 1970s, but today only about 46 percent of all income does.
#13 When you look at the ratio of employee compensation to GDP, it is now the lowest that is has been in about 50 years.
#14 In 1970, 65 percent of all Americans lived in "middle class neighborhoods".  By 2007, only 44 percent of all Americans lived in "middle class neighborhoods".
#15 Back in the year 2000, 11.3% of all Americans were living in poverty.  Today, 15.1% of all Americans are living in poverty.
#16 The poverty rate for children living in the United States increased to 22% in 2010.
#17 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 6.7% of all Americans are living in "extreme poverty", and that is the highest level that has ever been recorded before.
#18 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of "very poor" rose in 300 out of the 360 largest metropolitan areas during 2010.
#19 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs.  Today, less than 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.
#20 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is nearly three times as long as it was back in the year 2000.
#21 In the United States today, there are 240 million working age people.  Only about 140 million of them are actually working.
#22 Back in 2001, the ratio of wages to GDP was sitting at approximately 49 percent.  Today, it has fallen all the way down to about 44 percent.
#23 Half of all American workers now earn $505 or less per week.
#24 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs.  Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.
#25 In 2010, 19.7% of all U.S. working adults had jobs that would not have been enough to push a family of four over the poverty line even if they had worked full-time hours for the entire year.
#26 Electricity bills in the United States have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.
#27 The average American household spent a staggering $4,155 on gasoline during 2011.
#28 If inflation was measured the exact same way that it was measured back in 1980, the rate of inflation in the United States would bewell over 10 percent.
#29 According to a recent report produced by Pew Charitable Trusts, approximately one out of every three Americans that grew up in a middle class household has slipped down the income ladder.
#30 Total student loan debt in America has now passed the 1 trillion dollar mark, and about 270 billion dollars of those loans are at least 30 days delinquent.  These debts are absolutely crushing young middle class families.
#31 Today, approximately 25 million American adults are living with their parents.
#32 According to the Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that gets direct monetary benefits from the federal government.  Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.
#33 Between 1991 and 2007 the number of Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 that filed for bankruptcy rose by a staggering 178 percent.
#34 One out of every six elderly Americans now lives below the federal poverty line.
#35 The number of children living in poverty in the state of California has increased by 30 percent since 2007.
#36 According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, 36.4% of all children that live in Philadelphia are living in poverty, 40.1%of all children that live in Atlanta are living in poverty, 52.6% of all children that live in Cleveland are living in poverty and 53.6% of all children that live in Detroit are living in poverty.
#37 In November 2008, 30.8 million Americans were on food stamps.  Today, more than 46 million Americans are on food stamps.
#38 Right now, one out of every four American children is on food stamps.
#39 It is being projected that approximately 50 percent of all U.S. children will be on food stamps at some point in their lives before they reach the age of 18.
#40 In 2010, 42 percent of all single mothers in the United States were on food stamps.
#41 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.  Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid, and things are about to get a whole lot worse.  It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.
#42 Medicare spending increased by 138 percent between 1999 and 2010.
#43 One out of every six Americans is now enrolled in at least one government anti-poverty program.
#44 Federal housing assistance increased by a whopping 42 percent between 2006 and 2010.
#45 The amount of money that the federal government gives directly to Americans has increased by 32 percent since Barack Obama entered the White House.
As the middle class is systematically destroyed, families are looking for ways to survive any way that they can.
Why do you think that dollar stores are absolutely thriving these days?
It is because that is the only place many families can afford to shop.
So what is the solution?
Well, many liberals claim that the solution is to tax the wealthy and redistribute their money to the poor.
But that is definitely not the answer.
That would give the wealthy more of an incentive to take their wealth and their businesses out of the United States, and it would give the poor more of an incentive to sit around and not work.
When I was younger, if I could have gotten the government to pay my bills I probably never would have worked at all.  I was quite lazy and I probably would have been more than happy to sit at home and collect government checks.
It is only human nature not to work hard when you have someone else willing to take care of you.  For example, Vice-President Joe Biden recently revealed that he stayed in the U.S. Senate for so long because he didn't want "a real job".  There is a part of all of us that would like to avoid hard work.
So redistributing wealth is not going to be good for society as a whole.  It penalizes being productive and it rewards being lazy.
And our tax system is already way too oppressive for those that honestly pay their taxes.
Did you know that the average American must work 107 days just to make enough money to pay their taxes?
That is before a single penny is earned for anything else.
That is absolutely obscene!
This year, the average American will spend approximately 29 percent of what they make on federal, state and local taxes.
No, the truth is that our current tax system is horrific and it needs to be thrown out.
But that is a topic for another article.
Getting back to the dying middle class, the real answer is to break up big government and to break up the big corporations and promote competition in our economy once again.
We need wealth and power to be spread out into millions and millions of hands.
We need a system that tremendously encourages small businesses instead of absolutely crushing them.
We need dozens of competitors in most industries instead of just a handful.
We need to empower average Americans to be their own bosses instead of being dependent on big government and big corporations.
We need a system that gives "the little guy" a fighting chance.
It could be done if the American people were willing to reign in big government and the big corporations.
If you believe in the U.S. Constitution, you should believe in limiting the power of the federal government and limiting the power of the big corporations.
Those are principles that our founding fathers believed in, and those are principles that we need to return to.
0
Read more

Autism statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identify around 1 in 88 American children as on the autism spectrum–a ten-fold increase in prevalence in 40 years. Careful research shows that this increase is only partly explained by improved diagnosis and awareness. Studies also show that autism is three to four times more common among boys than girls. An estimated 1 out of 54 boys and 1 in 252 girls are diagnosed with autism in the United States.
By way of comparison, this is more children than are affected by diabetes, AIDS, cancer, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy or Down syndrome, combined.* ASD affects over 2 million individuals in the U.S. and tens of millions worldwide. Moreover, government autism statistics suggest that prevalence rates have increased 10 to 17 percent annually in recent years. There is no established explanation for this continuing increase, although improved diagnosis and environmental influences are two reasons often considered. Learn more …
0
Read more

The real hunger games: How banks gamble on food prices – and the poor lose out


In the last decade, financiers have speculated billions of pounds in food, helping to make prices dearer and more volatile 


SUNDAY 01 APRIL 2012

Speculation by large investment banks is driving up food prices for the world's poorest people, tipping millions into hunger and poverty. Investment in food commodities by banks and hedge funds has risen from $65bn to $126bn (£41bn to £79bn) in the past five years, helping to push prices to 30-year highs and causing sharp price fluctuations that have little to do with the actual supply of food, says the United Nations' leading expert on food.




Hedge funds, pension funds and investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Barclays Capital now dominate the food commodities markets, dwarfing the amount traded by actual food producers and buyers. Purely financial players, for example, account for 61 per cent of investment on the wheat futures market, according to the World Development Movement report Broken Markets.


Speculative investment in agricultural commodities in 2011 was 20 times the amount spent by all countries on agricultural aid. Goldman Sachs, the largest player in the agricultural commodities market, earned £600m from food speculation in 2009, and Barclays Capital, the world's third-largest player and largest British bank in this market, earned up to £340m in 2010, according to the report. Goldman Sachs and Barclays Capital declined to comment.


Before it was deregulated in the year 2000, the agricultural commodities futures market was used mainly by farmers and food buyers seeking to insure themselves against changes in the prices of products such as wheat, maize and sugar. When George W Bush passed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act 12 years ago, there was an influx, led by Goldman Sachs, of purely financial players who had no interest in ever buying food, but who sought solely to profit from changes in food prices, says Olivier De Schutter, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food.


He added: "What we are seeing now is that these financial markets have developed massively with the arrival of these new financial investors, who are purely interested in the short-term monetary gain and are not really interested in the physical thing – they never actually buy the ton of wheat or maize; they only buy a promise to buy or to sell. The result of this financialisation of the commodities market is that the prices of the products respond increasingly to a purely speculative logic. This explains why in very short periods of time we see prices spiking or bubbles exploding, because prices are less and less determined by the real match between supply and demand."


Food prices reached a 30-year high in 2008, sparking food riots from Mexico to Bangladesh. Prices rose even higher in September 2010 and, although they have dipped since, they remain above the 2008 crisis level. This has resulted in a "silent tsunami of hunger", according to the UN World Food Programme. High prices for basic foodstuffs, combined with the global economic slump, have pushed 115 million more people into hunger and poverty since 2008, bringing the total number of hungry people in the world today to 925 million.


High prices are "an absolute catastrophe" for poor consumers, says De Schutter, because they typically spend more than 60 per cent of their household budget on food.


It is not just the places normally associated with food crises that are feeling the effect of the speculators. According to Oxfam, in Armenia, between September 2010 and September 2011, the prices of basic foodstuffs rose as follows: sugar 46 per cent; eggs 49 per cent; cheese 38 per cent; pork 34 per cent; milk powder 30 per cent; and butter 26 per cent. The result was that all income groups in Armenia reduced food consumption: the poor by 14 per cent, and even middle-income groups by 5 per cent.


Karen Badishyan, from Gyumri, is an economist with a doctorate, and is married with two children. He said: "Seventy per cent of our household budget is spent on food and so we need to save more and more and we really lack money. We've borrowed a lot of money and we have no idea how we will pay it back. In Armenia, even if you have a job and work hard, your salary is too low to give your family a decent standard of living."


Violet Waithira is a Kenyan, unemployed, single mother looking after her eight-year-old daughter and 83-year-old father. When prices rose sharply in Kenya recently, the family were forced to drastically cut back: "We stopped eating lunch, and saved the little we had to eat for supper. We drank tea without sugar and sometimes we also missed breakfast. I had to travel so much to wash clothes to get money for food, but sometimes I was so weak I fell down. For supper, we had one or two cups of flour mixed with water and salt. Our life was so hard."


There have been many reasons for high food prices in Kenya, including post-election violence and drought, says Njoki Njoroge Njehu of the Daughters of Mumbi Global Resource Centre, but there were also global factors: "Corporations were speculating on food and made a lot of money. But it was done at the expense of ordinary people in Kenya, in Mexico, in Argentina and other places where there were food riots."


Experts disagree on whether speculation actually causes price rises or simply aggravates other factors such as climate shocks, the rise in world demand for food and the growth of biofuels. Jayati Ghosh, professor of economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, was one of 450 economists who last year called on the G20 to regulate the commodities market. She says that, although factors such as biofuels are important, speculation is now another "driving force" behind price hikes. She cites the example of world wheat prices doubling between June and December 2010, even though there was no fall in the global supply of wheat.


David Hallam of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization says that while he does not believe speculation is the cause of price rises, it does exacerbate swings in prices and should be regulated. "If you have something which is amplifying price movements, then that is a terribly important issue that needs to be addressed."


The Obama administration introduced regulation of commodity trading as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, passed in 2010. However, legal challenges by Wall Street mean the regulations have not yet come into force. The G20 summit last June made a commitment to introduce so-called "position limits" which cap the number of agricultural commodities contracts any one investor can buy, but as yet no country, apart from the United States, has adopted these. The one measure taken by the G20 is the creation of the Agricultural Markets Information System, which pools data about crop levels or bad harvests from around the world to try to prevent misinformation or rumours sparking panics on the markets.


The European Union is currently discussing regulation of the commodities market. Christine Haigh, a campaigner from the World Development Movement, says the EU's proposals "need more teeth", but there is "still all to play for". The WDM is particularly concerned that Britain is advocating a weaker form of regulation known as "position management", rather than strict caps. "The food-price spikes we have seen over the past few years have had a devastating impact on the world's poorest people and it is morally abhorrent that banks and other financial institutions are contributing to that. It is vital that we get proper regulation of these markets," she says.


Making the market more transparent is also essential, says the UN's food rapporteur. At present, 82 per cent of trading in the European commodities market is "over-the-counter" – private deals made between two parties that are not registered on any exchange. This makes it impossible to see what's driving the price changes.


But introducing changes will not be easy, says De Schutter. "There is huge lobbying going on. These issues are so technical; lawmakers are literally running out of experts. They can only call on experts from the financial world. Very few legislators are well-equipped to deal with these issues, which sometimes may be too technical for them to make relevant comments. It's really a problem of democracy. We are heading for a difficult situation: climate shocks, droughts, floods are increasingly frequent and extreme. The predictability of crop production is more difficult, so speculation is more attractive than ever, frankly. It is all the more important then, given this context of uncertainty, to regulate speculation to prevent things becoming even worse."
0
Read more

Phenomenon – The Lost Archives – Episode 14: The Missing Secrets of Nikola Tesla



Watch this documentary episode that takes an in-depth look at the information found in recently de-classified government documents. It explores the life of Nikola Tesla with new information that has been sequestered from the public for over sixty years.
0
Read more
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Copyright © 2012 Thrcenter.
Blogger Template by Clairvo